Sugarite wrote:

I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.

Please don't even start with that naive and over-debated point of view.

You

going to buy a different stereo for each album? Or carry a variety of
studio monitors? Renovate your house to have a variety of sound rooms?

That's pretty much what *you* are suggesting, isn't it? You want to
lay the *same* coloured wash over *all* your music. It might suit
some, but it won't suit all of them. Seems like a no-brainer to keep
the reproduction system as neutral as possible, if high fidelity is
your aim.


Actually, what I consider a no-brainer is the way many people look at sound
reproduction, meaning that they're not using their brains. I'm not going to
waste my time going into detail about psychoacoutics, but considering that
I'll always be using the same set of ears, I have no difficulty with the
idea of the same "coloured wash" on all my music. Taking terms like
accuracy and neutrality and applying them in a literal fashion to sound
reproduction design requires the belief that everyone's auditory system
behaves exactly the same. Typically proponents of that type of design
require scientific data to be convinced of anything, yet there's no evidence
to suggest that people hear the same sounds beyond the very basic. If one
were to assume that people do hear highly complex sounds differently, just
like every different mic design renders a different response, there is only
one type of device that is capable of manipulating highly complex and subtle
psychoacoustic properties effectively and beneficially, and that is the
vacuum tube.

You can listen to your music while wearing a football helmet if that's
your preference, but if you advocate that I do so you can expect some
negative comment.


snip

--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the
"SWEN" worm, I have concluded we must conceal our
e-mail address. Our true address is the mirror image
of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame
such steps are necessary.

Charlie